Faith is not defined by that which is based solely upon unproven or un-evidenced wants (i.e. the ardor of things or deities, not yet accomplished/seen/achieved). This is more of an example of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind FaithÃ¢â‚¬Â. Faith is also defined (or based) upon past evidences and facts/proofs projected into the future. For example, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard from reputable witnesses that your older brother bench pressed 200lbs previously (and even on a number of occasions) then you can have faith that he will be able do it in the future (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). These evidences are stronger if they are personally experienced. For example, you are a wrestler on your high school varsity team. Your opponent during a given match, is someone you have vanquished previously (again, even on a number of occasions). You can therefore have a very great faith that you will defeat him again. This is still faith, but it is predicated upon knowledge of past evidences, projected upon future events.

Does this mean that your brother will actually bench the 200lbs, or that you will beat your opponent at the wrestling match? NO, it does not! It is simply an indication of your belief (or faith) projected onto said future events.

Faith is speculation, but it can be fact supported speculation; or speculation bereft of any facts. Both are faith, but one is Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â.

One promulgated misconception heavily pushed by the camp of skeptics, atheists, humanists, and materialist evolutionists, is that anyone who rejects evolution (especially in order to hold to a fundamental, literal understanding of the biblical documents) proceeds so via Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faith.Ã¢â‚¬Â

But, the fact is; these skeptics, atheists, humanists, and materialist evolutionists are proceeding on Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â when making such statements. Much like they are proceeding on "Blind Faith" that "the universe just is", or "evolution has no connection with it's origins", or "atheism has a foundation beyond its philosophical faith statements".

The word 'faith' seems to have been appropriated by those who have a religious belief structure. What you have described could also be described as evidential supposition, or in other terms a safe bet. I agree entirely that previous experience and existing evidence should and will have a bearing on what we believe. Blind faith I think is more of an adherance to a belief or an opinion, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Whether scientific or religious there have been many who were guilty of this. Albert Einstein for instance, refused to accept the possibilty of an expanding universe or of Quantum theory on the basis that God would have made everything beautiful and within our capacity to understand.
As an athiest I have no desire to force religious believers to abandon their beliefs. It is merely confusing to me that they so aggresively attack any evidence which threatens those beliefs. To discount solid and reliable evidence in order to hold to an existing view can be described as 'Bad science' or 'Blind faith'. both will be done in good faith

The word 'faith' seems to have been appropriated by those who have a religious belief structure.

The word Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â has been Ã¢â‚¬Å“appropriatedÃ¢â‚¬Â by peoples of many worldviews (yes, even so-called atheists). In fact, many Biblical skeptics have hijacked the word, in order to force a Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â type of definition onto the Christian belief system. And nothing could be further from the truth. Nowhere does Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New Testament, ask for Blind faith. On the contrary, it is a repeated Biblical theme to Ã¢â‚¬Å“checkÃ¢â‚¬Â the evidences, and build your faith Ã¢â‚¬Å“as a ChristianÃ¢â‚¬Â upon those evidences. In fact, if one reads the text objectively, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon notice that Ã¢â‚¬Å“saidÃ¢â‚¬Â faith is preceded by actions.

What you have described could also be described as evidential supposition, or in other terms a safe bet.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a problem with that assessment. I would want a more sophisticated explanation, but yours is a succinct explanation none-the-less. And, it refutes the Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â assertion as well. So itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all good.

I agree entirely that previous experience and existing evidence should and will have a bearing on what we believe. Blind faith I think is more of an adherance to a belief or an opinion, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Absolutely!

Whether scientific or religious there have been many who were guilty of this.

Albert Einstein for instance, refused to accept the possibilty of an expanding universe or of Quantum theory on the basis that God would have made everything beautiful and within our capacity to understand.

Although your opinion of EinsteinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reasoning for wanting to continue with his belief in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Steady StateÃ¢â‚¬Â theory is debatable, that is neither here nor there. The fact is that he DID want to keep the faith in that theory. And that does go directly to the point.

As an athiest I have no desire to force religious believers to abandon their beliefs.

That is highly commendable. But, as we see by the statement below, there may well be an underlying contrary feeling. Also, forcing a Ã¢â‚¬Å“believer of the opposite belief systemÃ¢â‚¬Â of Christian theism goes against the the tenants of Christianity (and that of Christ Himself).

It is merely confusing to me that they so aggresively attack any evidence which threatens those beliefs.

What is confusing here, is that you believe that simply because someone opposes what you call evidence (or your world-views perspective on said evidence), as an aggressive attack. It seems that I could turn your own accusation around, and call it an Ã¢â‚¬Å“aggressive attackÃ¢â‚¬Â which Ã¢â‚¬Å“threatens you own beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â as well. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the rub: If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â statement, assertion, or accusation; it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence to back up your claim. And, self-refuting claims are just thatÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Self-refuting. Therefore, to make the following statement, although partially sound in theory:

To discount solid and reliable evidence in order to hold to an existing view can be described as 'Bad science' or 'Blind faith'. both will be done in good faith

It must be understood, that it absolutely cuts both ways. And, Ã¢â‚¬Å“good faithÃ¢â‚¬Â is not based upon discounting Ã¢â‚¬Å“solid and reliable evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â, that would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“bad faithÃ¢â‚¬Â. Therefore, the above is a self-refuting statement.

As an athiest I have no desire to force religious believers to abandon their beliefs. It is merely confusing to me that they so aggresively attack any evidence which threatens those beliefs. To discount solid and reliable evidence in order to hold to an existing view can be described as 'Bad science' or 'Blind faith'. both will be done in good faith

Solid reliable evidence? Man, where do I start? I could do a whole thread on that subject. But just so I don't derail this one. I'll give you some examples of what is not solid evidence.

1) Evidence that is constantly changing is not real truth or reality because these things do not change. They are "real truth" to begin with so no change is needed. And what is always changing in science? So what are we to believe?

Example: You say that a certain evidence today debunks what I have to say today (makes it a lie). Tomorrow new evidence replaces what you used to say I was wrong. So am I still wrong because I disagree with you and that still makes my evidence a lie. Or did you become the liar claiming I was one? So is it okay to say one idea is debunked by another idea that can change?

2) Science cannot even come up with a scientific definition for the word truth that would be accepted and would work with supposedly how science works. Why? Actual real solid truth can never be found in science. Because that would make science have to commit to an idea which can be proven wrong. So the truth they say they are trying to find, they themselves have made unobtainable. You cannot reach a goal you cannot define.

3) Science is basically run by atheists who have made science itself atheistic. Basically applying the rules of naturalism, humanism, and conformism. Making sure that no other ideas will be researched, pondered, mentioned, accepted, etc... Unless it falls into those 3 guidelines. Don't believe me? Have you ever made the comment: Science is not about finding the supernatural, only the natural?a) That puts restrictions on what direction any evidence can lead to. When you are supposed to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. Making it to where it can only lead to naturalistic things making sure that only naturalistic things will be accepted. Anything else is rejected.B) It makes all evidence have to conform to a certain view so that this view will be the only one researched or accepted.c) It makes the supernatural not even a factor, so that in effect it can be rejected without being researched.d) And anyone whom dares to present any good evidence, this enables the scientific side to discredit the person by attacking their credibility. Instead of using real scientific research to do so. Which is more of an opinion and zero science.

And attacking things that attack their beliefs?

That's a good one. How many anti-creationists sites exist compared to anti-evolutionists site? I'd say it's about 10 or more to 1 in favor of the evolutionists. but let's also add every negative comments made on scientific sites about creation. It now changes to about 1000 to 1 in favor of evolutionists. So who attacks who?

if science had really good solid evidence, the supposed attacks could be easily debunked. Seems to me that it does not work that way or the evolutionists would not be having such a problem with it.

That's a good one. How many anti-creationists sites exist compared to anti-evolutionists site? I'd say it's about 10 or more to 1 in favor of the evolutionists.

Let's not forget about the anti Christian atheist sites. They make rude, s*xually explicit, vulgar, and over the top obscene jokes and comments (and photo-shopped pictures) about Christians, Christianity and Christ hims-self.

Or, how about (since we're on the subject) the atheist forums that condone their trolls to come here and do nothing more than stir the pot, and cause trouble. There are three or more "notable" (i.e. MAJOR) atheistic forums, that we have busted out here (thins year alone), where we caught "red handed" planning, on the open forum, hatching their little plans.

Let's not forget about the anti Christian atheist sites. They make rude, s*xually explicit, vulgar, and over the top obscene jokes and comments (and photo-shopped pictures) about Christians, Christianity and Christ hims-self.

Or, how about (since we're on the subject) the atheist forums that condone their trolls to come here and do nothing more than stir the pot, and cause trouble. There are three or more "notable" (i.e. MAJOR) atheistic forums, that we have busted out here (thins year alone), where we caught "red handed" planning, on the open forum, hatching their little plans.Ã‚Â

I showed this picture below on one atheist-evolutionist forum and they thought it was neat and put it on their forum in the pics section. And does anyone there object? Of course not. It just shows that some theories promote hate beyond comprehension.

I showed this picture below on one atheist-evolutionist forum and they thought it was neat and put it on their forum in the pics section. And does anyone there object? Of course not. It just shows that some theories promote hate beyond comprehension.

That kind of reverses the spin on statements like the below, does it not?

As an athiest I have no desire to force religious believers to abandon their beliefs. It is merely confusing to me that they so aggresively attack any evidence which threatens those beliefs.

Especially when in the first sentence, a professed Ã¢â‚¬Å“neutral stanceÃ¢â‚¬Â (really?!) is taken, then in the second sentence Ã¢â‚¬Å“theistsÃ¢â‚¬Â are accused of Ã¢â‚¬Å“aggressivelyÃ¢â‚¬Â attacking any (and all, I suppose) evidences that threatens their beliefs.

The poster then Ã¢â‚¬Å“aggressivelyÃ¢â‚¬Â attacks theists with accusations of using Ã¢â‚¬Å“bad scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â against his purported Ã¢â‚¬Å“good scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â:

To discount solid and reliable evidence in order to hold to an existing view can be described as 'Bad science' or 'Blind faith'.

But, as usual, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the thingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ He (the poster) failed to provide any Ã¢â‚¬Å“good scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â to substantiate his accusations.

The bottom line, though, is this: You cannot use good points (which I, for the most part agreed with above), to lead to fallacious and spurious opinion, in a failed attempt to support your faith (as the poster did).

As Chesterton said: "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

Interesting topic, although i am afraid that if i respond to Ikester7579's response, i will be derailing the topic. If anyone could chime in to tell me that, yes, if i were to respond, i would be derailing the topic, that would be very much appreciated.

That kind of reverses the spin on statements like the below, does it not?

Especially when in the first sentence, a professed Ã¢â‚¬Å“neutral stanceÃ¢â‚¬Â (really?!) is taken, then in the second sentence Ã¢â‚¬Å“theistsÃ¢â‚¬Â are accused of Ã¢â‚¬Å“aggressivelyÃ¢â‚¬Â attacking any (and all, I suppose) evidences that threatens their beliefs.

The poster then Ã¢â‚¬Å“aggressivelyÃ¢â‚¬Â attacks theists with accusations of using Ã¢â‚¬Å“bad scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“blind faithÃ¢â‚¬Â against his purported Ã¢â‚¬Å“good scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â:But, as usual, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the thingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ He (the poster) failed to provide any Ã¢â‚¬Å“good scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â to substantiate his accusations.

The bottom line, though, is this: You cannot use good points (which I, for the most part agreed with above), to lead to fallacious and spurious opinion, in a failed attempt to support your faith (as the poster did).

As Chesterton said: "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

I dont think he "aggressively" attacked you, as ive seen a lot more aggressive attacks from atheists. Although most of those obscene, insulting things that are posted, are done more out of humour than an actual attack, and ive laughed at both things that were supposed to insult theists, and things that were supposed to insult atheists(The "Dick to the doc to the PhD" Vid is one example, i enjoyed that), I agree that both sides seem to have what we would call an "Embarrassment" to our own niche.

But the problem i have with the word "Blind faith" is the same as Darwin, the previous poster, said, although i have my own views regarding it. And i dont want to derail the topic so ill go back to the topic at hand.

Faith is extremely similar, to trust. If you hear from someone you know, that constantly lies, who tells you that your brother benched 200 lbs, you are less inclined to believe him, because you dont trust his word. You are also less inclined to have faith that your brother will bench 200 lbs.

But, if someone, even a reputable witness, tells you that your brother bench pressed 20000 lbs, you are not going to believe him, regardless of whether you trust him or not. And you are not likely going to place any faith in your brother bench-pressing 20000 lbs in the future. The reason, of course, being that such a thing is impossible.

On the opposite side, Blind faith would have to be a belief that your brother will bench 200000 lbs if you ask him to, and he will do it successfully, despite your knowledge of the evidence that no one could possibly do such a feat.

I woudlnt agree that the two examples you gave, constitute as faith AND blind faith, as BOTH scenarios(Your brother bench pressing 200 lbs, and you winning your wrestling match), have evidence to support their claims. Only if there is direct knowledge of evidence that contradicts the claims, could you have blind faith. And so, either no evidence, or a contradiction of evidence, is required in order to believe something as being "Blind faith".

As an athiest I have no desire to force religious believers to abandon their beliefs. That is good. Obviously not all atheists agree with you. It is merely confusing to me that they so aggresively attack any evidence which threatens those beliefs. Not all creation scientists do this. In fact, I find that in my reading I usually like to stick to the ones that don't. Just as you, an atheist, do not feel the need to attack those who have a religious belief system, not all Creationists feel the need to attack evolutionists. To discount solid and reliable evidence in order to hold to an existing view can be described as 'Bad science' or 'Blind faith'. both will be done in good faith

Another question came to mind here as well: What are these obvious minors doing peddling P*rn?

I think that as we get older we assume others are younger. I have been at the museum with my kids and thinking that others are kids and then I see that they have their children with them.

Nowhere does Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New Testament, ask for Blind faith.

But quite a few religious leaders do.

Again, I wasn't referring to any religious leaders. I specifically pointed out Ã¢â‚¬Å“Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New TestamentÃ¢â‚¬Â. This is in no way inclusive of anyone outside that description.

Nowhere does Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New Testament, ask for Blind faith.

But quite a few religious leaders do.

Again, I wasn't referring to any religious leaders. I specifically pointed out Ã¢â‚¬Å“Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New TestamentÃ¢â‚¬Â. This is in no way inclusive of anyone outside that description.

Yes I noticed that. A good thing. Just pointing out why some would be confused.

Another question came to mind here as well: What are these obvious minors doing peddling P*rn?

I think that as we get older we assume others are younger. I have been at the museum with my kids and thinking that others are kids and then I see that they have their children with them.

Children, having children, are still children.

Oh I agree, but I tend to think 20-24 year olds still look like minors. lol

Nowhere does Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New Testament, ask for Blind faith.

But quite a few religious leaders do.

Again, I wasn't referring to any religious leaders. I specifically pointed out Ã¢â‚¬Å“Jesus, or any other leader/teacher of the New TestamentÃ¢â‚¬Â. This is in no way inclusive of anyone outside that description.

Yes I noticed that. A good thing. Just pointing out why some would be confused.

No one would be confused if they actually read the bible, and what Jesus actually taught.

Another question came to mind here as well: What are these obvious minors doing peddling P*rn?

I think that as we get older we assume others are younger. I have been at the museum with my kids and thinking that others are kids and then I see that they have their children with them.

Children, having children, are still children.

Oh I agree, but I tend to think 20-24 year olds still look like minors. lol

Indeed, but those kids in the picture were kids (i.e. minors, i.e. under 18 etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) And, what they did was a prankish stunt actuated from inane understanding. I wish I wouldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve had a chance to speak with themÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Interesting topic, although i am afraid that if i respond to Ikester7579's response, i will be derailing the topic. If anyone could chime in to tell me that, yes, if i were to respond, i would be derailing the topic, that would be very much appreciated.

We don't mind what is called small derails. It sometimes adds substance to the current thread. But these types of derails need to be over within 2 pages of posts then it's back to subject.

Thank you for that, Ikester7579. In which case, i will respond, but ill try to make it brief.

Solid reliable evidence? Man, where do I start? I could do a whole thread on that subject. But just so I don't derail this one. I'll give you some examples of what is not solid evidence.

1) Evidence that is constantly changing is not real truth or reality because these things do not change. They are "real truth" to begin with so no change is needed. And what is always changing in science? So what are we to believe?

Example: You say that a certain evidence today debunks what I have to say today (makes it a lie). Tomorrow new evidence replaces what you used to say I was wrong. So am I still wrong because I disagree with you and that still makes my evidence a lie. Or did you become the liar claiming I was one? So is it okay to say one idea is debunked by another idea that can change?

2) Science cannot even come up with a scientific definition for the word truth that would be accepted and would work with supposedly how science works. Why? Actual real solid truth can never be found in science. Because that would make science have to commit to an idea which can be proven wrong. So the truth they say they are trying to find, they themselves have made unobtainable. You cannot reach a goal you cannot define.

3) Science is basically run by atheists who have made science itself atheistic. Basically applying the rules of naturalism, humanism, and conformism. Making sure that no other ideas will be researched, pondered, mentioned, accepted, etc... Unless it falls into those 3 guidelines. Don't believe me? Have you ever made the comment: Science is not about finding the supernatural, only the natural?a) That puts restrictions on what direction any evidence can lead to. When you are supposed to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. Making it to where it can only lead to naturalistic things making sure that only naturalistic things will be accepted. Anything else is rejected. It makes all evidence have to conform to a certain view so that this view will be the only one researched or accepted.c) It makes the supernatural not even a factor, so that in effect it can be rejected without being researched.d) And anyone whom dares to present any good evidence, this enables the scientific side to discredit the person by attacking their credibility. Instead of using real scientific research to do so. Which is more of an opinion and zero science.

And attacking things that attack their beliefs?

That's a good one. How many anti-creationists sites exist compared to anti-evolutionists site? I'd say it's about 10 or more to 1 in favor of the evolutionists. but let's also add every negative comments made on scientific sites about creation. It now changes to about 1000 to 1 in favor of evolutionists. So who attacks who?

if science had really good solid evidence, the supposed attacks could be easily debunked. Seems to me that it does not work that way or the evolutionists would not be having such a problem with it.

In regards to point 1, i find no problem with this. Given the fact that:a). Humans make mistakes. Humans dont know everything in the universec). Humans are constantly learning new things and receiving new evidence

we have to create a process that fixes itself. There is no such thing as an "Absolute" Truth in science, and it depends on the new evidence, but the fact that the old evidence used to support this theory, is true, and that the new evidence disproves that theory, is also true.

In regards to point 2, i completely agree. If we are talking about actual, formal definitions, and not simple colloquial usages, there is no such thing as truth in science, because truth has more to do with philosophy than science. If I had to use the word "Truth" in the sentence that explains what science does, id have to say, that science is trying to get as close to the truth as humanly possible.

In regards to point 3, id have to disagree. But i pretty much wrote my response to this on another thread and so im not gonna retype what i already wrote, here.